So if this is true sony is saying that smaller more experimental games are day one on other platforms which is redcioulous to make a distinction out of that. Everyone thought that sony will keep sp games exclusive for 1 to 2 years at least but it doesnt seem the case. So its probably 1 or 2 timed exclusives per year at best.
The reasoning for thats is that they will try to make people on others platforms buy playstations.
So hulst is fucking up nishino work with this bullshit. This wont work.
While I agree in large part with what he is saying I also have some objections:
1) The reason why Lego Horizon Adventures isn't coming to Xbox Series isn't due to "Directly Competing Platforms".
The reason is that the audience they want to target with the game is present on Nintendo Switch but not so much on Xbox and just checking the sales split of any other Lego game would confirmt that.
He says that "Sony/PlayStation does not consider Nintendo Switch to be a directly competing platform just like mobile phones are not considered a directly competing platform so putting some experimental games from Neon Koi on phones is not an issue." but that's flat out false.
We currently are at an all-time high level of game sharing between the PS ecosystem and the Nintendo ecosystem and their usage is very similar, unlike with smartphone where the kind of games, utilization and monetization schemes differes significantly from console/PC gaming.
BTW PC gaming (mainly Steam) also is competing directly with PS for the players time and money as should be abundantly obvious by now.
2) "Similarly, Nintendo is not putting Mario Odyssey on mobile phones but they are putting Mario Run on mobile phones."
Not really similar.
The intention might be (catch up audience not present on the owned ecosystem to try to attract some of them to the platform in the future) but not the execution.
Super Mario Run is a game app specifically designed for smartphones thus it utilize portrait mode, touch controls while autorun and is designed to be played with one hand.
Super Mario Odyssey is designed like a console game and it is obviously exclusive to Nintendo platoforms.
With Lego Horizon Adventures SIE is funding a console game that is targeting day and date PS5, Nintendo and PC.
3) "There has been debate in the past from leaders in the gaming industry about whether or not 2nd Party exists but it has become a necessity to have this classification because the alternative is saying "A 1st Party Game Developed by a 3rd Party Studio." This is overly long & it's also seen as disingenuous to label these games 1st Party so the term 2nd Party works best."
2nd party doesn't really exists as a term IMO because what matter is the IP/publishing rights more than who developed what.
In the past (still valid for Nintendo) if a console holder owned an IP that IP would never appear on other platforms thus it is/was useful to highlight such difference.
Game Freak is an idependent company from Nintendo and has developed games for non-Nintendo platforms in the past however the Pokemon IP is controlled by Nintendo which is the reason the Pokemon console games are exclusive to Nintendo platforms.
That Pokemon or Kirby or Fire Emblem etc. are developed by an independent entities from Nintendo isn't as significative as knowing those franchises console outings are esclusive to Nintendo hardware.
"Experimental" lol Microsoft did the same thing. Sony is literally following what MS is doing. They are just take a little longer.
The reactions are indeed awfully similar to when the Switch port of the first Ori game was unveiled 5/6 years ago.
Dismissing the game (saying it was a small game) and attempting to portrait the whole matter as exceptionalism.
Many miss that the key point is a change in SIE mindset in how their first-party is considered in relation to their own platforms.
If SIE thinks is acceptable to release a funded game that use its own IP for a Nintendo console to attempt to reach a wider audience then in the future they will surely take in consideration the possibility to release one of their first-party games also for Nintendo consoles.
It's undeniable that more family-friendly franchises like Astro Bot, Ratchet & Clank and Sackboy or japanophile ones like Gravity Rush would benefit from Nintendo's audience.
Nintendo doesn't have an approach 'case by case' when there is a matter if a first-party console game should be exclusive to Nintendo consoles, the answer is always no so it's not even taken in consideration.
The stark stance is motivated by a keen understanding on how their business works so much that Yamauchi decades old words still rings valid for them:
Q: Several software houses have undertaken a multi-platform strategy - signing agreements with Nintendo and others to become licensees for several different game systems. Do you think this will have a rejuvenating effect on the industry?
Y: Well, let's say that we make a game called X and we port it to game systems from Company A, Company B and Company C. Then it doesn't matter if a user bought A's, B's or C's system, he'll be able to play game X on his own console. There's no difference between any of the game systems in this case.
Now I certainly understand the reasoning behind a multi-platform strategy. As I said before, development costs have spiralled upward, and it's become difficult to guage how well something will sell in the marketplace. They want to cut their risks and be able to sell that many more copies of a single title, so they decide to just release it on everything. I can understand that.
However, if this becomes the norm, then it'll have a dire effect on the marketplace. If users can play the same game on every single system out there, then there'll be no reason to buy one system over the other. It'll be just like buying a TV; no matter which one you buy you'll still have all the same channels. In the game business, software is our lifeblood. If that software becomes the same everywhere then there'll be zero difference between companies. The marketplace will just turn into a giant hardware war.
Now, you'll agree with me that TV sets are a fairly indispensible part of life these days. More people have them then don't. Washing machines and refrigerators are the same way. People have to buy them no matter what, so dealers end up relying on added extra features and advertising to compete in the marketplace. On the other hand, game machines are far from indispensible. If the software was the same no matter which system you buy, then the only point we'd be able to sell on is price. This industry is based on producing fun, innovative games, but if that goes away then we're all done for. That's why, even though I understand where software houses are coming from, I think ultimately it could break apart the industry.
Q: That's why you continue to produce games only for your own systems, including the upcoming Gamecube.
Y: Yes. Nintendo's business is to make games that can only be played on Nintendo systems. Nintendo's games only run on Nintendo's consoles, and no one else's. Our aim is to get people to think Nintendo's games are the greatest, the best in the world.
We're devoting all of our effort to that right now, and we'll be able to show our efforts to the world this year. We'll see how it turns out after the Christmas season, or about ten or eleven months from now.
- Hiroshi Yamauchi, 2001
